map_open

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and non-idempotency, so the safety profile is largely covered; the description's contribution is the validation precondition and the unsaved-map refusal. It does not explain why opening is destructive (what editor/session state is replaced), nor anything about failure modes or the meaning of the validation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope and the refusal condition come first. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure tightness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With five parameters, three required, zero schema descriptions, a destructive annotation and no output schema, the definition cannot explain validation semantics, epoch/revision expectations, or what "open" changes. For a state-mutating operation this leaves significant gaps an agent must guess at.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across five parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails: it never mentions request_id, map_epoch, or expected_revision, which are all required and pattern-constrained. Only the map/artifact distinction is faintly implied by "catalog map or saved artifact".

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Validate and open a catalog map or saved artifact" names a specific compound verb and two concrete resources, which is far more informative than the tool name alone. It does not name a sibling (e.g., map_new or map_save_as) to sharpen the boundary, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The clause "refuses an unsaved map" gives one clear exclusion, implying this is for already-persisted maps or artifacts. However, it never states the positive when-to-use condition or points to an alternative such as map_new for unsaved work, leaving the routing decision mostly to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.